Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb

    More and more it is looking really stupid that the B-70 was cancelled. Here are about 3 reasons why.

    First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.

    Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.

    Third, with all the large supersonic flying experience it would have had, cancelling it probably set aviation back 30 years. There is no reason we should not have supersonic transports flying all over the world right now.

    Cancelling the B-70 was just a stupid political move.

    #2
    B-52 is still used because it is a big bomb truck that can launch missiles from 5000-10000 km aways. You don't need a fast aircraft that is several times more expensive to do that.

    Comment


      #3
      what's more, the B-52 is an old horse that can be adapted to any needs.. the Russians had the Myasitchev M-50 even earlier in the pipeline which was disposed of in the early 1960's as they developed missiles to do the job (a lot cheaper to maintain).. same thing: the mission for which it was made disappeared

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
        B-52 is still used because it is a big bomb truck that can launch missiles from 5000-10000 km aways. You don't need a fast aircraft that is several times more expensive to do that.
        5000 to 10,000 km?. what is price of those missiles?fast aircraft not expensive. Why all the time B1 flying in Middleast and NK.

        Comment


          #5
          First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.
          Because flying and maintaining a mach3 aircraft, one that had no obvious mission and weighted 50% more than a B-52, would have bankrupted the USAF.

          Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.
          The SR-71 was retired in 1998, the Dragon Lady still flies, theres a lesson in there.

          Third, with all the large supersonic flying experience it would have had, cancelling it probably set aviation back 30 years. There is no reason we should not have supersonic transports flying all over the world right now.
          It would have been such an invaluable experience for the civilian aviation having a great supersonic airframe flying around.
          Hmmmmmmmmmm
          Click image for larger version

Name:	2C775B2A00000578-3239952-image-a-38_1442580498040.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	68.0 KB
ID:	3676990
          sigpic

          Comment


            #6
            @Mig 31.

            The B 52 is not a bomb truck. Its a bomb hay wagon. The B 70, if configured to just be a bomb truck, would have been more efficent. Hard not to be.

            I agree with the poster. The B 52 still has doggy low bypass engines ffs.
            Last edited by KGB; 12th October 2017, 18:22.

            Comment


              #7
              @Sintra

              The Concorde was not a failure. It flew til 2003 and 911 regulations and the resulting depression in the industry grounded it.

              The crashes were not its fault most of the time. It had a good safety record.

              Comment


                #8
                Crashes? the Concorde crashed only once... one time too many, of course, but only once

                The main problem of the Concorde was in two facts:

                - the US protectionism that forbid it from flying over continental USA

                - the 1974 crisis when oil prices jumped through the roof, resulting in the impossibility to make any profit with the Concorde (as the ticket price to make profits would have been so high that way too few people would be able to afford it). British Airways and Air France both had their part of the Concorde initial production which they kept flying for prestige reasons, even if they made no direct money on it

                Comment


                  #9
                  KGB:
                  Concorde was a commercial airliner which couldn't repay any of its design & development or even production costs. Airlines could only afford to operate it when they were given it, free.

                  That's a failure.
                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                  Justinian

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The B 52 is not a bomb truck. Its a bomb hay wagon. The B 70, if configured to just be a bomb truck, would have been more efficent. Hard not to be.

                    I agree with the poster. The B 52 still has doggy low bypass engines ffs.
                    The B-70 would have less range than the B-52, carrying 1/3 of the bomb load, while consuming more fuel and an RCS that could rival the USS Gerald R. Ford.
                    Last edited by Sintra; 12th October 2017, 19:12.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      #11
                      swerve

                      it became a failure after the oil crisis. the USA reaction (which was not unlike the tax they've put on Bombardier sale to Delta recently) was just another thing that made sure it would be profitable. if the oil did remain at the prices it had before, it would still have operated over a certain number of routes and potentially make profits.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        First since the B-52 is still a valued aircraft, why wouldnt an aircraft that flys twice as high and 4 times faster be better.
                        But probably a bazillion times more expensive to operate too.

                        Second, since the SR-71 was never shot down, why wouldnt the B-70 achieve the same results.
                        The Sr 71 never overflew enemy territory. For a bomber you would have to.

                        Nic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No long-range missile - no effective aircraft

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	compare.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	118.0 KB
ID:	3676995

                          Comment


                            #14
                            BTW thanks Logical1 for such a fun topic. There's not enough of these.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              @Toocool

                              There's still a myth lingering out there that the Concorde was dangerous.

                              The Concorde made it through the fuel price spike. It had little to do with the cancelling in 2003. Which was a time of very cheap fuel prices.

                              The cockpit dividing door regs was an issue after 911. There is no such door and for a reason. The structural stretch from the heat.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                @Swerve

                                This isn't an economics forum. But sure. In this era where air travel is Greyhound with wings, it was a failure. But maybe not.

                                Because part of that economic calculation had to do with the way the industry was deregulated in some areas and not in others and how it all evolved.

                                You just cant deny that there would be demand for supersonic travel. (monarchs, pro sports, celebs, business tycoons) And we had the technology to do it. So if those 2 things are true, the culprit for its death or non profitablity lies in government regulation.

                                The whole noise pollution thing, if you look into it, was largely a scam. It had the same underpinnings of all neo-eviromentalists. The whole idea behind the movement was to slow down technology and capitalism. And the Concorde was a huge target because it represented Jetsons level technical advancement. But here we are 30 years later. We don't question the validity of the noise pollution issue. We just take it at face value. There were other ways, other routes and procedures that could have mitigated the noise. But nope. It was a clear win for the enviro lobby.

                                And this is relevant to the topic b/c it has to do with aviation evolution.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  The Sr 71 never overflew enemy territory. For a bomber you would have to.
                                  Sure it did. Just not USSR/China.

                                  At least Vietnam and N.Korea were oveflown.
                                  Last edited by Z1pp0; 12th October 2017, 23:16.
                                  Latencia Profecionalis

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    @KGB
                                    The noise pollution thing wasn't a scam....I live on one of the flight paths to Heathrow Airport (almost 30 km away) one of the busiest airports in the world....when Concorde used to fly over the whole house would shake...if you were on the phone you had wait until it had gone to carry on talking...it really was awful! Hundreds of planes fly every day but you can't hear a thing....modern jets are silent by comparison ;-)
                                    Stand up for what you believe in even if you are standing alone...Sophie Scholl (9 May 1921 - 22 February 1943)

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      XB-70 didn't even have a bay for bombs. That was a technical hurdle yet to tackle.

                                      It made more sense in the electronics day & age to resurrect YF-12A as a standoff high-speed, high-altitude smartbomb-release platform. The B-70 was affordable if you operated like ten and cancelled B-52, FB-111A, and B-58 - and never initiated B-1A development - to offset operational costs.
                                      Go Huskers!

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        @Tony

                                        Of course the boom was real. But they could have mitigated the noise pollution. Instead they banned it

                                        Comment


                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X